C R RAJAGOPALAN DR Vs. DIRECTOR NIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a declaration declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in appointing respondents 5 and 6 as professors in Cardiothoracic Surgery and Anaesthesiology vide proceedings No. 1/165/ Acad/95 dated 22-2-95 as illegal, arbitrary, void, etc.

(2.) It is not necessary to consider the case of the second (sic. sixth) respondent as she is no longer continuing as Professor in the first respondent Institution.

(3.) The petitioner is the Honorary Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the first respondent Institute. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of fifth respondent as Professor in the first respondent Institute. According to the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Professor, a person should have the qualifications included in the I or II schedule or Part-II of the third schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 and a Post Graduate qualification Ex.MD/MS or a recognised qualification equivalent in the respective discipline/subject and/or M.Ch for Surgical Super-Specialities and D.M for Medical Super Specialities or qualifications recognised equivalent thereto and fourteen years teaching and /or research experience in a recognised Institute in the subject or speciality after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS or twelve years after obtaining M /Ch /DM or qualification recognised equivalent thereto. The fifth respondent who was aged about 59 years did not possess any teaching or research experience as required by the Rules for the post of Professor in the first respondent Institute. From 1973 onwards till his appointment as Professor in the first respondent Institute, he was a private practitioner in Dubuque, IOWA State in United States of America. Further according to Rules of recruitment, any recruitment to regular post should be made by advertisement in the News paper inviting applications from qualifying candidates for such posts and the Selection Committee constituted under Section 22 of Act 13/1989 has to process the application of candidates who have applied for the posts and select a suitable person. In the case of appointment the procedure contemplated under Section 22 of me Act has not been followed. The Executive Board's meeting held on 17-2-95 was presided over by the fourth respondent in violation of Regulation-25, Chapter-Ill of the first regulation of the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Act 13/1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The fourth respondent was only an Advisor to the State Government on Medical and Health matters and he exerted pressure on the President of the Governing Council of the Institute in appointing respondent No. 5. It is also stated that from 1990 onwards the fourth respondent was exerting pressure on the first respondent Institute to recruit 5th and 6th respondents as Professors, in violation of Rules, there was enmass resignations by three Senior Cardiothoracic Surgeons (Professors) from the Institute. The State Government intervened and as a result, the Institute dropped the idea of recruiting respondents 5 and 6 as Professors. The main objection for the appointment of 5th respondent as Professor in the Institute in 1990 was mat he was deliberately brought in by the fourth respondent in order to make him as Head of the Department who lacks in the basic requirements to become a Professor under the Institute rules, ignoring the men working in the department and their experience and seniority. Having failed in his attempt in bringing in the 5th respondent in 1990, the fourth respondentimmediately after the Telugu Desam Party in 1995 assumed office endorsed the bio-data of the fifth respondent. A Resolution bearing No. 11, dated 9-6-1990 passed by the then Executive Board, and a letter No. 473/E2/90-1 dated 16-6-90 from the Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department were given effect to in 1995 to bring 5th and 6th respondents into the Institution as Professors vide resolution No. 267 of the Executive Board. In view of the above, the appointment of the 5th respondent is liable to be set aside.